It started in the 1700's when people didn't have access to information and understanding as to what is going on with the canidates but with everything we have today to make a good informed decision, it simply dosent make any sense.

Examples: If you live in Texas and are a democrat your vote dosen't count

If you live in California and are a republican your vote dosen't count

I have never heard a good argument as to why a popular vote dosen't work in today's society.

If the majority of the people want one person but the electorial college says the other is the winner why is that right?

Look I really don't care who wins in the end with divided house/senate very little is going to happen, we all know that.

Ah yes, the originalist construction where you and Scalia shake the magic 8 ball and if it say what you want, then that's what it must've been.

They were written to be co-equal branches a la Montesquieu's writings. But amnorix is right in that the actual duties delegated to each do not imply that the execuutive is the weakest. Your tantrum notwithstanding.

Hell, you don't even believe in judicial review and marbury v. Madison, so what important tasks are you claiming make it stronger?

__________________Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken

"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." - Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788 by James Madison who was there at the convention and wrote the document.

It isn't a stawman argument. It was an attempt to get you to be more specific in your claim. However it is the most democratic selection of representation that got the purse control. I believe that is Madison's argument. And this is in relation to the Congress and the Senate process is it not.

__________________Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken